Complaint no. LA/Fa/45 concerning an alleged contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct by Councillor Dennis Goldie of Falkirk Council

• 1.0 Introduction
• 2.0 Outline of the Complaint and the Response
• 3.0 The Investigation
• 4.0 Consideration of the Complaint and the Response
• 5.0 Findings and Decision
• Appendix A The Complaint
• Appendix B The Response
• Appendix C List of interviewees
• Appendix D Minute of the meeting 23 January 2004
• Appendix E Copy of Standing Order 26.1
• Appendix F Copy of terms of apology
• Annex A The Respondent's representation on the draft report

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Complaint number LA/Fa/45, alleges a contravention of the Councillors' Code of Conduct ("the Code"). The Code was issued by the Scottish Ministers in terms of section 1 of the Ethical Standards in Public Life etc. (Scotland) Act 2000 ("the 2000 Act") and came into effect on 1 May 2003.

1.2 The person complaining is Councillor Thomas Coleman ("the complainant") and he has alleged a contravention of the Code by Councillor Dennis Goldie ("the respondent"). Both Councillors are elected members of Falkirk Council ("the Council").

1.3 The complaint alleges that at a special meeting of Falkirk Council on 23 January 2004 Councillor Goldie asserted that "Councillor Coleman has done to the education service in this area what Dr Harold Shipman has done for patient care".

1.4 The complainant alleges that the respondent breached the key principle of the Code relating to Respect, which states:

"You must respect all other councillors and all Council employees and the role they play, treating them with courtesy at all times."

This appears to be also an alleged breach of section 3.14 of the Code which deals with Conduct in the Chamber or in Committee and states:

"You must respect the chair, your colleagues, Council employees and any members of the public present within the Chamber during Council or Committee meetings or other formal proceedings of the Council. You must comply with rulings from the chair in the conduct of the business of the Council."

1.5 The respondent has signed a declaration of acceptance of the office of councillor under the Local Authorities (Councillors) (Declaration of Acceptance of Office) (Scotland) Order 1990, as amended, in terms of which he has undertaken to meet the requirements of the Code.

1.6 For the purpose of this investigation, I was assisted by Mr Iain A McLeod and Mr Harris Wells, Investigating Officers.

1.7 This report has been prepared for submission to the Standards Commission for Scotland in terms of section 14(2) of the 2000 Act. The report was submitted in draft form to the respondent for any representations. His response dated 2 November 2004 is set out in Annex A.

2.0 Outline of the Complaint and the Response

The Complaint

2.1 The complaint is set out in a complaint form from the complainant to the Standards Commission for Scotland and is attached as Appendix A.

The Response

2.2 The response is set out in a letter from the respondent dated 2 March 2004 and a copy of this letter is attached as Appendix B.

3.0 The Investigation

3.1 To establish the background to the complaint I sought and received information from the Monitoring Officer of the Council, and also informed the respondent of the complaint and obtained his written response.

3.2 I also took evidence individually from the complainant and the respondent, from elected members of the Council and from the Monitoring Officer and another Council official. The interviews took place on 29 April and 7 May 2004. A list of those who were interviewed is set out in Appendix C.

4.0 Consideration of the Evidence

4.1 The respondent has been a Councillor (Labour) for 24 years, and is currently the Depute Leader of the Labour Group. He has served as Provost on 3 occasions, has chaired the Policy and Resources Committee and almost all other major Committees of the Council and has been Leader of the Council and of the Labour Group.

4.2 The complainant has been a Councillor (SNP) since 1999 and is currently the Convener of the Education and Leisure Committee which position he has held since 2001.

4.3 The evidence of all the witnesses was in the main consistent as to what occurred at the meeting on 23 January 2004 and the respondent does not deny making the remark attributed to him.

4.4 The remark was made during debate on the Council's Schools Replacement Project which was the first item of business on the agenda of the special meeting of Falkirk Council held on 23 January 2004. There were submitted an extract of minute of meeting of the Policy and Resources Committee held on 13 January 2004 and a report dated 6 January 2004 by the Director of Education Services advising of the progress since the submission of the bid to the Scottish Executive to fund a schools replacement programme and seeking approval to vary the bid in part for resubmission to the Scottish Executive. In terms of the Council's scheme of delegation this item had been called into Council by the respondent and Councillor Gow. Councillor Alexander seconded by Councillor Kenna moved acceptance of the recommendations contained within the report. By way of an amendment Councillor Gow seconded by Councillor C Martin moved that the non profit distributing organisation (NPDO) bid be twin tracked with a PPP bid to be used as a comparator thus having a fall back position should the NPDO bid be unsuccessful. The complainant, as the Convener of the Education Committee contributed to the debate the tone of which was generally regarded as being unexceptionable until the respondent made the remark which became the subject of this complaint. As can be seen from the minute of the meeting, which is attached as Appendix D, the meeting was attended not only by all the elected members of the Council but also by the Chief Executive and all the Council's senior officials. It would appear that at least one representative of the press was present at the meeting as the remark made by the respondent was reported in a subsequent edition of the Falkirk Herald.

4.5 At interview the respondent stated that he made the remark which led to this complaint after hearing Councillor Coleman's virtues as Education Convener being extolled and because he understood that a bad report was to be published covering the period of the complainant's convenership. It is generally agreed that the remark made by the respondent provoked an uproar in the Chamber. A number of witnesses considered the remark to have been premeditated although the respondent denied this. It has been described as being "out of context in every sense". The complainant immediately demanded that the remark be withdrawn and that an apology be made. The Provost who was in the Chair made a similar request but the respondent neither withdrew the remark nor apologised. Several witnesses stated that he repeated the remark but this is denied by the respondent. The respondent was warned by the Provost about his misconduct in terms of the Council's Standing Order number 26.1 (a copy of the relevant standing order is attached as Appendix E). The incident is recorded in the minute of the meeting in the following terms:

"In terms of Standing Order 26.1 the Provost checked Councillor D Goldie for casting reflections of a personal character on Councillor Coleman and directed him to continue his speech in an appropriate manner".

After an interruption of 2-3 minutes the meeting continued.

4.6 At interview the complainant stated that he was very angry and very upset by the respondent's remark. As he visits schools and has access to pupils and teachers he took the remark to infer that he had harmed them as Dr Shipman had harmed his patients. He stated however that had the remark been withdrawn and an apology made he would not have made this complaint. He would accept an apology if it were made now but due to the passage of time might consider that it was being made in bad grace. He believes that a written apology might suffice but that a verbal apology made before full Council would be more appropriate.

4.7 At interview the respondent stated that he regrets having made the remark "if it gave him (the complainant) real concern". The respondent maintained his position that when he made the remark he was using "the extreme comparison – a tool of language widely in use throughout society – and obviously not intended to be an exact comparison". He could not explain why he chose to make the extreme comparison with Dr Harold Shipman. He produced various documents which he claimed illustrate that he has been the victim of a smear campaign for many years. He did not claim that the complainant has played any part in this campaign and for the purposes of this investigation these documents do not appear to be relevant. On 18 May 2004 the respondent wrote to the complainant expressing his regret that it is apparently the case that he (the complainant) was offended by the remark and undertaking not to repeat such a remark in future. On 8 June 2004 the respondent wrote inter alia, "... I would propose to apologise to Councillor Coleman at a Council meeting in exactly the same circumstances as when the remark was made......" The terms in which the respondent proposed to apologise are set out in a letter from him dated 23 July 2004. A copy of this letter is attached as Appendix F.

4.8 The respondent has now made the apology at the meeting of the Council held on 6 October, 2004 as proposed and this apology has been accepted by the complainant.

5.0 Findings and Conclusion

5.1 The complaint alleges that at a special meeting of Falkirk Council on 23 January 2004 Councillor Goldie asserted, in the context of a debate on the Council's Schools Replacement Project, that "Councillor Coleman has done to the education service in this area what Dr Harold Shipman has done for patient care".

5.2 The complainant alleges that the respondent breached the key principle set out in section 2.1 of the Code relating to Respect and the provisions relating to Conduct in the Chamber or in the Committee set out in section 3.14 of the Code, as outlined in paragraph 1.4 of this Report.

5.3 In this case it is not disputed that the remark which became the subject of this complaint was made and the circumstances in which it was made are as set out in section 4 above.

Accordingly all that remains is to conclude whether or not the remark which was made in all the circumstances constituted a breach of the Code's provisions on Respect and Conduct in the Chamber or in the Committee.

5.4 In relation to the allegation that the respondent has breached the Code by making the remark which he does not deny, one of the witnesses described the remark as one of the worst he has ever heard in 16 years as a councillor and the Provost who has been a councillor for 32 years considered it to be "the lowest remark for years". I am satisfied that the remark shows complete lack of respect for another councillor and was discourteous in the extreme.

5.5 I have therefore found that the respondent made the remark referred to in paragraph 5.1 above, at a full meeting of the Council on 23 January 2004, that the remark was most improper, rude, discourteous and offensive, that the making of the remark was disrespectful to the complainant and to the other councillors, officers and members of the public attending the meeting and that by making the remark the respondent was in breach of the provisions of the Councillors' Code of Conduct relating to Respect and Conduct in the Chambers or in Committee.

5.6 I do, however, note that the respondent has made an apology at the full Council meeting on 6 October 2004 in the terms set out in Appendix F, and taking that into account and also taking into account the views of the complainant who has indicated he accepts the apology, I do not consider that any further action requires to be taken regarding this complaint.

D Stuart Allan
Chief Investigating Officer
Forsyth House
Innova Campus
Rosyth Europarc
Rosyth
KY11 2UU
2 December 2004